Home | About | Donate

Signs Look Grim for Media Picking the Side of Liberty and Dissent


Signs Look Grim for Media Picking the Side of Liberty and Dissent

Janine Jackson

This is a kind of “which side are you on?” moment for journalists. Will they defend the rights and liberties of the many communities under threat—Muslims, women, those reliant on government assistance? Will they keep alive a space for dissent and critical questioning in the face of a White House that declares itself indifferent to rules about conflicts of interest, among many other things, and that threatens revenge on those it calls “enemies”?

Let’s just say: Signs bode poorly.


I think the NY Times used the term "despite lack of evidence" to describe a Trump "lie." The truth about factual statements comes down to the evidence. The press should be capable of handling these type of statements since they have been doing it for years. Their stories are believed or not believed depending on the sources. Two or more good sources make a story more credible than one source. The problem with Judith Miller's stories about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq was that it was all based on one source and it turned out that the source was lying. Ultimately it is up to the viewer or reader to decide if what they are being told is true based on what the evidence is. The problem the country has now is that millions of people have joined a right wing populist movement that doesn't care at all about the evidence behind statements. The only thing that matters with whether what they are being told supports their views or not. Democracy cannot survive on that kind of a basis. If favors dictatorships.


I expect nothing else from the corporate media.


I firmly believe that working for Faux News Channel disqualifies any correspondent from EVER working for a REAL news network again. I thought that CBS was wrong to hire Major Garrett as White House correspondent after he worked for Fox, and I think that NBC is totally wrong in bringing in Megyn Kelly and Greta Van Sustern (Rachel Maddow's endorsement of her "dear friend" not withstanding) to NBC and MSNBC. Anyone who has slung bull pucky for Fox should automatically be disqualified from ever being considered a serious journalist again.


I agree. But don't worry, NBC and CBS are not REAL news networks. Can anyone who sits on their ass and reads news on TV be called a journalist? They are media personalities. Does anyone think Savannah Guthrie or Matt Lauer are journalists?

To me, journalists are people like Jeremy Scahill, Glenn Greenwald, Matt Taibbi, Greg Palast, John Pilger and Gary Webb. People who actually go out and dig up the dirt. (Or in Gary Webb's case went out and dug up the dirt.)


If dissent were as profitable as Don, we'd see that reflected.
Recall that the CEO of CBS (Les Moonves) publicly stated that he knows Don "...is hurting America...", but is great for ratings, "so bring it on."


Absolutely. And don't forget Robert Parry and Amy Goodman


Both NBC and CBS have correspondents who cover war zones. Yes NBC and CBS are real news networks. To say they are not is undermining democracy.


Really? They are not journalists, they are imbeds who write down the propaganda handed to them by the military. Other than real war zone correspondents like Jeremy Scahill who is actually going into the field like correspondants in Vietnam did.? That went so bad for the US propaganda machine that now the military has strict protocals to control the story which is fed to NBC and CBS to calm people like you.

You are undermining democracy by being obtuse. The same oligarchs that own us own the media, basically five giant corporations. Viacom, Disney, etc. if you get your news from them you are ill informed. Try Democracy Now with Amy Goodman, or progressive websites like....Common Dreams.